LITT
Try LITT free
TEY SONG KIEM MRS GOH CHEOW MIANG v MOHD JAFFAR BIN ISMAIL practising as FFUSION ARCHITECTS (Singapore UEN No. XXXXXXXXM) & Anor
An architect does not owe a duty of care to a third party for the operational design or supervision of installation of an automated gate if such tasks fall outside the scope of their architectural services. A contractor who constructs and installs such a gate owes a duty of care
Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee [2011] SGCA 2
The Court of Appeal found the clerk of works liable for negligence, ruling he breached his duty of care by failing to supervise backfilling and report unsuitable materials. Damages are to be assessed by the Registrar, with the Appellant awarded costs for the appeal and lower court proceedings.
PT Makindo (formerly known as PT Makindo TBK) v Aperchance Co Ltd and others [2011] SGCA 19
In PT Makindo (formerly known as PT Makindo TBK) v Aperchance Co Ltd and others, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contempt of Court.
Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others [2011] SGCA 18
In Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Charities, Unincorporated Associations and Trade Unions.
Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 17
In Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 17, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ruling the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of knowledge under the Misuse of Drugs Act after the Prosecution's release of a key witness deprived the defence of exculpatory testimony.
BCH HOTEL INVESTMENT PTE LTD TRADING AS INTERCONTINENTAL SINGAPORE v SEMTEC HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. & Anor
Committal proceedings for civil contempt require proof beyond reasonable doubt that the failure to comply with a court order was intentional, meaning the contemnor had the means to comply but deliberately chose not to.
Eu Lim Hoklai v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 16
In Eu Lim Hoklai v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.
Cupid Jewels Pte Ltd v Orchard Central Pte Ltd [2011] SGCA 15
In Cupid Jewels Pte Ltd v Orchard Central Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Landlord and tenant — Distress for Rent.
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 14
In Ramalingam Ravinthran v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law.
Teo Wai Cheong v Crédit Industriel et Commercial [2011] SGCA 13
In Teo Wai Cheong v Crédit Industriel et Commercial [2011] SGCA 13, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial after newly discovered internal documents cast doubt on witness credibility and factual findings regarding the authorization of disputed accumulator trades.
Kwek Seow Hock v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 12
In Kwek Seow Hock v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law, Evidence.
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd [2011] SGCA 11
In Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Legal Profession — Disciplinary Procedures.
Azuma Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v MEP Systems Pte Ltd [2011] SGCA 10
In Azuma Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v MEP Systems Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract.
Holcim (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Precise Development Pte Ltd and another application [2011] SGCA 1
In Holcim (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Precise Development Pte Ltd and another application, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Interpretation of force majeure clause.
Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2010] SGCA 9
In Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil procedure — Interim payments.
Public Prosecutor v Hirris anak Martin and another [2010] SGCA 8
In Public Prosecutor v Hirris anak Martin and another, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.
Over & Over Ltd v Bonvests Holdings Ltd and another [2010] SGCA 7
In Over & Over Ltd v Bonvests Holdings Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Companies — Oppression.
Mühlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd [2010] SGCA 6
In Mühlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Patents and Inventions.
Martek Biosciences Corp v Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd [2010] SGCA 51
In Martek Biosciences Corp v Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG [2010] SGCA 50
In Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure, Injunctions.
Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd and another appeal and another application [2010] SGCA 5
In Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd and another appeal and another application, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure.
Tan Chin Hock v Public Prosecutor [2010] SGCA 49
In Tan Chin Hock v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory Offences, Evidence — Proof of Evidence.
ZF v Comptroller of Income Tax [2010] SGCA 48
Case Details * Citation: [2010] SGCA 48 * Case Number: Civil Appeal No 12 of 2010 * Decision Date: 15 December 2010 * Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore * Coram: Chan Sek Keong CJ; Andrew Phang
Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (Trading as Rabobank International), Singapore Branch v Motorola Electronics Pte Ltd [2010] SGCA 47
The Court of Appeal allowed Rabobank's appeal, ruling that Motorola Electronics failed to prove an implied tripartite set-off agreement. The Court held that the absence of a written contract between sophisticated parties, combined with insufficient evidence of consensus, precluded the claim.